Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: This makes all Analytic(Olcott) truth computable
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 17:33:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1b66f6b4e791240d42b21207e2c0eaa9362932b8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v86olp$5km4$1@dont-email.me>
 <43690773dba43c5d93d11635af0a26532e5be390@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qgn7$1tedb$15@dont-email.me>
 <6272b80d0aeaca324ac8624dce71945edeb59092@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qjg5$1tedb$17@dont-email.me>
 <2e642af254f6140ce8711da64f31d4fd8467d58b@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qkeb$1tedb$19@dont-email.me>
 <f883e0312dcbce8663eaa445348e225687d83959@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qm86$1tedb$22@dont-email.me>
 <a2c1ed800e02c5e922df63241206c00d855680d5@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qncv$1tedb$25@dont-email.me>
 <2d7efb21a7466aa56ed7be937da998852f6882af@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qon8$1tedb$27@dont-email.me>
 <e452294ec866e3297f9bfec55eff17db4a347a25@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qpju$1tedb$30@dont-email.me>
 <1ec5e64194f4e88998b8d462497e3a378e1d91fd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qsn9$1tedb$33@dont-email.me>
 <c094e38b272f3522f77a85301391ec1d3ae399a9@i2pn2.org>
 <v9qv6c$1tedb$34@dont-email.me>
 <8afe6c7a528a79eb88aa4754f84d524134d83cc6@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r2nc$1tedb$37@dont-email.me>
 <7b3df4b2e110cce7c51ca2ce0b82b26531030402@i2pn2.org>
 <v9r4dp$1tedb$39@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 21:33:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9r4dp$1tedb$39@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4948
Lines: 97

On 8/17/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/17/24 4:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> It is more of a somewhat poorly defined process than it is a defined 
>>> term.
>>>
>>
>> Thinks IGNORANT you.
>>
> 
> The vast disagreement on very important  truths
> such as climate change and election denial seems
> to prove that the notion of truth lacks a process
> sufficiently well defined that it is accessible
> to most.
> 

But has nothing to do with what Philosophy thinks of as truth, but of 
people being closed minded

>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They are generally a learned-by-rote bunch. Philosophy of
>>>>> logic delves into this more deeply the problem. The
>>>>> learned-by-rote bunch assumes that learning by rote makes
>>>>> them philosophers. They tend to push actual philosophers
>>>>> out by denigrating them in the philosophy of logic spaces.
>>>>> Wittgenstein had no patience with them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you have your never-learned-because-of-ignorance ideas that are 
>>>> just incoherent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
>>
>> Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>>
> 
> Wittgenstein said the same thing.
> Try to name any logician that has any history of
> being open to critiques of the received view and
> you will come up empty.
> 
>>>
>>>> Your trying to ally with Wittgenstein doesn't really help you, as 
>>>> his ideas were not always accepted, and considered prone to error, 
>>>> not unlike your own.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may seem that way from a learned-by-rote the rules-of-logic
>>> and the "received view" are my gospel frame of reference.
>>>
>>
>> Thinks IGNORANT YOU.
>>
>> Your problem is you reject that logic HAS rules that need to be followed, 
> 
> Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
> Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV

Note, I said has rules, and different forms of logic have different 
rules, something that seems foreign to you.

If you want to create your own logic, you are welcome, but you need to 
put in the work to do it.

You seem unwilling to do that, likely because you know it is beyound 
your ability,


> 
>> and thus you have put yourself out of the game, and make yourself into 
>> a LIAR by claiming to be in the game, but diqualfing youself by 
>> breaking the rules.
>>
> 
> Just like I said a learned-by-rote view.
> Not any what happens if we change this rule? POV

So says the IGNORANT-DON'T-ACTUALLY-KNOW-ANYTHING person.

As I said, you are just proving your stupidity,

Try to ANSWER the problems I am pointing out, rather than just refute by 
restating your claim.

That attitude is what proves you are stupid
because you can't actually justify any of your points, because you have 
nothing but your own ideas to support you ideas whcih doesn't work,
> 
>> Sorry, you are just proving how STUPID and IGNORANT you are of what 
>> you talk abot.
> 
>